"Last week a California jury gave a big win to Masimo with a $634 million verdict against Apple Watch patent infringement. I'm confident that additional post-verdict motions will be coming, but these are foreshadowed by Apple's JMOL motion and objection to jury instructions."
"Apple's Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law (made before the verdict) argues that no reasonable jury could find the Apple Watch satisfies the "patient monitor" claim limitation of the asserted US10433776 which claims high and low heart rate notification. Apple's basic argument is that the patent appears to be focused on hospital-grade clinical devices. But the claims themselves are not so limited. But, Apple's hook is the the claim term "patient monitor" -- where Apple watch users are not even patients. The patent expired in 2022."
A California jury awarded Masimo $634 million after finding the Apple Watch infringed U.S. Patent No. 10,433,776, which claims high and low heart-rate notifications. Apple filed a pre-verdict Rule 50(a) motion for judgment as a matter of law arguing that no reasonable jury could find the Apple Watch meets the claim limitation requiring a "patient monitor." Apple contends the patent appears focused on hospital-grade clinical devices while the claims lack that express limitation and emphasizes that Apple Watch users are not patients. The patent expired in 2022 and post-verdict motions are anticipated.
Read at Patently-O
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]